D = Diploma Post

The AoF inbox is full of complaints right now about our lack of posting. Cool out bitches. Right now we are immersed in rigorous studies and mountains of fast food. More accurately we are furthering the age-old addage of D = Diploma. Yes this is an exact picture of what my diploma will look like.

One quick hit thought to tide you animals over. Thank you to everyone in the media who has been reminding me that I'm actually racist despite the fact that I'm not. This is mostly centered around the idea that the hate of Barry Bonds is racially motivated. To everyone furthering that notion: sit on the barrel of Sammy Sosa's corked bat and rotate. Here's how simple it is to talk about this without involving race Todd Boyd: The hate of Barry Bonds is based on his douchebaggery, not the color of his skin. Barry Bonds juiced (therefore cheated), so he doesn't deserve the record Hank Aaron has held. That's the argument for people who don't like Bonds. Same with Sosa, same with Giambi, same with Palmeiro. Douchebags all around. I happen to agree with my main man David Ortiz. I also think that Hank Aaron didn't have to hit against juiced pitchers.

(Of course there are glaring racial issues left to be sorted out in this country, but I'm speaking in the context of sports and shock journalism, narrow scope, and of course there are exceptions there too, so save your energy in responding.)

The bigger problem here is lack of imagination and critical thinking in the media. Sure it's guised as taking on important social issues, but it's the same story played out in different costumes. If you can't be creative enough to write about sports without overplaying the race card then retire, or kill yourself. Same with the geniuses behind these "polls" that suggest such a resurgence of racism, also PR ploys. Even Charles Barkley found the NBA study to be ridiculous. Bottom line: Imus reignited a story-line that sells and creativity starved writers and networks lached on like leeches and started flying off in different directions with it. Hope Vivian Stringer gives some of the proceeds from her book to her players.

Would it be fair to say: Some things are just not worth reporting

In the latest installment of the campus newspaper at Quinnipiac University, located in Hamden, CT, the paper published an "exclusive" story regarding a professor at the law school. Now I could take issue with the article itself, the characterization of this professor, who also happens to be the most recent recipient of the "Professor of the Year" award chosen by a vote of the graduating class each year, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. My issue lies with the writer and editorial staff of the QU Chronicle, the "independant student run newspaper."

(1) Not only was this story published in the "news" section of the paper, when it could easily have been written as an editorial piece, it is the headline story of the issue, as well as the lead article on the website. Does this story really warrant such exposure? Does anyone care besides the guy who was offended?
(2) One could argue that the professor student relationship obligates the professor to entertain every suggestion offered by the student. What I'm sure many non-law students have never witnessed is what takes place in a first year law class, where a wrong answer can draw considerable ire from the professor. The issue here was a legitimate one, but the professor was under no duty to entertain or respond to the email. Rudeness is not illegal. Further, the dispute between the professor and the student took place over an email list which the student would have had to actively sign up for, not a public forum nor a classroom. Likewise where was the aggregious conduct? Just because one of them disagreed with the other and dismissed his suggestions doesn't make it wrong, or even newsworthy. The professor went out of his way to raise issues, for those on his email list to discuss, not necessarily to start an open debate. The student didn't like his answer...so what? Maybe the student was wrong. Get over it.
(3) Regarding the student. He was offended, big deal. I try and offend people as frequently as possible, whether it be intentional or not. Put my name on the front page, I could use the press. "No press is bad press" right? To publicly expose him regarding a communications that are outside the classroom context is just plain wrong and could do undue damage to his reputation on campus and in the academic and legal community. Did it qualify as front page news? I highly doubt it. Looking at past issues, there were plenty of newsworthy front page articles. None of them were labelled as "exclusive". They include, Student Injured in Car Crash, Burglaries on Campus, Community Reaction to the New Arena, and QU Property Purchases. The article seems better suited to be a part of the Opnion section of the paper, where a staff writer can echo the concerns of the offended student through an editorial piece. What have we learned here? A professor pissed off a student and wouldn't entertain his suggestions in debate. Fantastic. I'm glad we're all aware of this now. I'll be sure to note that at one point in time this guy acted like a jerk. There are plenty of professors who I've locked horns with over one issue or another. In some cases I'd love to see them gone. Hurt feelings don't belong on page one. They'd be relegated to page 6 of the NY Post, right after Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore were spotted smoking a joint in a public park.

I'm sure the staff of the QU Chronicle is competent and generally insightful. The communications school is teeming with literate, educated individuals. Breaking a big news story is the dream of any budding journalist, but this time around there is no story. I suggest the next headline be a public apology for irresponsible reporting.